|
|
|
|
|
by adolph
136 days ago
|
|
Very true in that "living standards" is very subjective. When I wrote that I was thinking of London's population loss, not achieving a similar population until the 1300s. And I was thinking of claims that European literacy rates likewise took a long time to recover. I don't think it is right to say that population loss usually results in higher living standards due to more land per capita. For one, in a pre-industrial society agriculture is labor intensive and the amount of land that can be worked by a person does not scale with land availability. The Black Death [1] economic section works out some of the less than positive impacts. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death |
|
That’s not the necessarily best metric either, though. Roman city sizes (especially Rome itself) very inflated due to centralized state redirecting a lot of tax revenue there.
However in premodern times pretty much all cities universally had negative population growth which would imply they weren’t particularly nice places to live if you had better options.